PLant Hire owner gets suspended sentence

[Stock]

Copied this from the construction index....................

Missing ROPS lands plant hirer a suspended jail sentence

A self-employed businessman has been given a suspended jail sentence for supplying unsafe construction equipment that led to the death of landscaping contractor in Reigate, Surrey.

Above: The skip loader on its side following the incident
Ken Pinkerton, a 47-year-old landscape gardener, was crushed when a one-tonne skip loader he was using tipped over onto its side. He had hired the loader, a type of dumper, along with a mini-excavator from Brian Beavis, who traded as Heavy Plant Repairs, of Canterbury, Kent.
The fatal incident, on 28 September 2011, was investigated by the Health &Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Mr Beavis for serious safety failings.
Key flaws identified by HSE with the skip loader included:

• it had no seat belt
• the roll-over protection could not be operated, and,
• a missing spring meant the engine cover could not be secured.

Guildford Crown Court heard that Mr Pinkerton, who lived with his long-term partner and their six children in Herne Bay, ran his own landscaping business and had been hired for a job in Reigate.
He was using the mini-excavator when it turned over. He then took the skip loader to try to upright the digger. However, as he was trying to operate the machine, it went backwards, reversed over some garden waste, left the ground and then tipped over. He was thrown from his seat and sustained fatal crush injuries.
In addition to several defects on the skip loader found by HSE, Mr Beavis had failed to provide any user information for the construction equipment he had supplied.
Brian Peter Beavis, treading as Heavy Plant Repairs, of Nash Road, Ash, Canterbury, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 6(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was given a nine months' prison sentence, suspended for a year, and ordered to pay £10,000 compensation to Mr Pinkerton's partner.
Passing sentence, Mr Recorder Nelson QC said: "It is just tragic that six children lost their dad. The deceased would likely have survived had there been a seatbelt and rollover bar."
After sentencing, HSE inspector Amanda Huff said: "Businesses who hire out mobile plant must ensure that is in a safe condition and provide proper safety and user instructions to the customer. Anyone wanting to hire plant would be well advised to check all the safety features are in place and that clear instructions are available."

[Muz]

Copied this from the construction index....................

Missing ROPS lands plant hirer a suspended jail sentence

Ken Pinkerton, a 47-year-old landscape gardener, was crushed when a one-tonne skip loader he was using tipped over onto its side. He had hired the loader, a type of dumper, along with a mini-excavator from Brian Beavis, who traded as Heavy Plant Repairs, of Canterbury, Kent.
The fatal incident, on 28 September 2011, was investigated by the Health &Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Mr Beavis for serious safety failings.
Key flaws identified by HSE with the skip loader included:

• it had no seat belt
• the roll-over protection could not be operated, and,
• a missing spring meant the engine cover could not be secured.

Guildford Crown Court heard that Mr Pinkerton, who lived with his long-term partner and their six children in Herne Bay, ran his own landscaping business and had been hired for a job in Reigate.
He was using the mini-excavator when it turned over. He then took the skip loader to try to upright the digger. However, as he was trying to operate the machine, it went backwards, reversed over some garden waste, left the ground and then tipped over. He was thrown from his seat and sustained fatal crush injuries.
In addition to several defects on the skip loader found by HSE, Mr Beavis had failed to provide any user information for the construction equipment he had supplied.
Brian Peter Beavis, treading as Heavy Plant Repairs, of Nash Road, Ash, Canterbury, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 6(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was given a nine months' prison sentence, suspended for a year, and ordered to pay £10,000 compensation to Mr Pinkerton's partner.
Passing sentence, Mr Recorder Nelson QC said: "It is just tragic that six children lost their dad. The deceased would likely have survived had there been a seatbelt and rollover bar."
After sentencing, HSE inspector Amanda Huff said: "Businesses who hire out mobile plant must ensure that is in a safe condition and provide proper safety and user instructions to the customer. Anyone wanting to hire plant would be well advised to check all the safety features are in place and that clear instructions are available."

There are several questionable positions regarding this article ... *whilst I quote Stock .. he is only the provider of the article, not the originator.*

the roll-over protection could not be operated

These dumpers have fold down ROPS bars, which are folded at the hirers discretion. Often I have found them folded down, when equipment is off hired, so .. the situation could have arisen then, when it would have not been in place anyway .. and who would be liable then ? the operator .... It is for him to satisfy himself that the equipment is suitable for the work it is intended to do.

However .. legally .. the default position is that ROPS should be supplied in place. But if its a variable option, it cannot be binding.

He was using the mini-excavator when it turned over. He then took the skip loader to try to upright the digger. However, as he was trying to operate the machine, it went backwards, reversed over some garden waste, left the ground and then tipped over. He was thrown from his seat

So ... the hirer was inept enough to tip his machine over. And instead of contacting the hirer, he decided to have a go himself , to rectify the problem, most likely hoping that :

A: It would save him from further expense of uprighting the machine by the hirer.
B: hoping he could upright it himself , he hoped to hide any damage he might have caused to the engine of the digger so the hirer would have been none the wiser as to how the engine got damaged , or what caused it, or on what hire it came from ? thereby avoiding considerable expense to himself
C: he could continue to use it without notifying the owner of a problem

His inexperience meant he used a pivot steer and articulated machine which was completely innapropriate to upright an 'imoveable' object, which collapsed at both those points and threw him off to his severe injury. That is not the hirers fault in my view and a roll bar would not be guaranteed to have saved such an operator in my opinion, if it were in place.

It strikes me he took a lot of risks, at his own peril.

The deceased would likely have survived had there been a seatbelt and rollover bar.

No one feels safe using a seat belt on machines this small .. nothing would be surer if you went over in something that size than you would sustain severe injury most likely to the head, if you were fixed to the machine, .. although I would still prefer the bar .. but the belt is a hinderance. Most people would prefer to jump clear, and have the freedom to do so. In my opinion the regulations should be looked at, to consider that operators of this size of equipment shouldn't be tied into them.

I therfor believe the above statement to be partially incorrect

And as such, the hirers must share part of the blame for their own demise, sad state of affairs that that may be.

We ofcourse dont know if they had a chance to contact the owners, or if they tried to do so, and what response was given so in the absence of that , we can only speculate

[Stock]

Now I'm not taking sides here but it appears to me that the reason for liability is this......

"Businesses who hire out mobile plant must ensure that is in a safe condition and provide proper safety and user instructions to the customer. Anyone wanting to hire plant would be well advised to check all the safety features are in place and that clear instructions are available."

Then there is this little piece of legislation,

Section 6(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: " It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work or any article of fairground equipment to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work."
It comes back to the same old same old the hirer never questioned the competency of the hirer. Had he given the correct operating procedures and got a signature it may have mitigated the judgement some what but if they proved that the basic safety equipment was not intact then it is a direct breach of the act.

No one set out to have an accident and it is tragic when someone looses their life but it would appear that the court failed to consider the mistakes of the deceased in this incident.
In the training I received on accident investigation we were told that if we found the employee at fault we should reinvestigate as the management and risk assessment systems should have picked up on their non- compliance at some other point. Most accidents are caused by lack of proper management, had the hirer had a control system in place or had the deceased who was self employed adhered to the letter of the law then the whole mess may have been avoided.

I know in these challenging times corners are cut but 10k takes a lot of earning.

my 2 cents worth.

[Muz]

Now I'm not taking sides here but it appears to me that the reason for liability is this......

"Businesses who hire out mobile plant must ensure that is in a safe condition and provide proper safety and user instructions to the customer. Anyone wanting to hire plant would be well advised to check all the safety features are in place and that clear instructions are available."

Then there is this little piece of legislation,

Section 6(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: " It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work or any article of fairground equipment to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work."
It comes back to the same old same old the hirer never questioned the competency of the hirer. Had he given the correct operating procedures and got a signature it may have mitigated the judgement some what but if they proved that the basic safety equipment was not intact then it is a direct breach of the act.

No one set out to have an accident and it is tragic when someone looses their life but it would appear that the court failed to consider the mistakes of the deceased in this incident.
In the training I received on accident investigation we were told that if we found the employee at fault we should reinvestigate as the management and risk assessment systems should have picked up on their non- compliance at some other point. Most accidents are caused by lack of proper management, had the hirer had a control system in place or had the deceased who was self employed adhered to the letter of the law then the whole mess may have been avoided.

I know in these challenging times corners are cut but 10k takes a lot of earning.

my 2 cents worth.

Ineptitude and lack of common sense on the hirers part rules out most of your posts worthiness .. Look at the position of the skip on dumper , again, as it lies on the ground ?

[Wazza]

How would a rops have prevented it from being tipped on its side ? ,some protection from a roll over yes .......

[Muz]

"Businesses who hire out mobile plant must ensure that is in a safe condition and provide proper safety and user instructions to the customer. Anyone wanting to hire plant would be well advised to check all the safety features are in place and that clear instructions are available."

We certainly always offer advice and we can be contacted almost at any time to offer it if required, but if some guy gets a bit gung ho with your kit when your not looking .. theres not a lot you can do about it

Then there is this little piece of legislation,

Section 6(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: " It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work or any article of fairground equipment to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work."

See the point above ... btw whats the bit about 'fair ground' equipment in there for ?

It comes back to the same old same old the hirer never questioned the competency of the hirer.

I think any responsible hirer would, but its not the hirers job to perform a factual risk assessment of the customer either.

Had he given the correct operating procedures and got a signature it may have mitigated the judgement some what but if they proved that the basic safety equipment was not intact then it is a direct breach of the act.

We dont know what advice had been given, but as I stated earlier, the gear should have been hired with the bar fitted and upright, of that there is no doubt and I agree entirely on that point.

we were told that if we found the employee at fault we should reinvestigate as the management and risk assessment systems should have picked up on their non- compliance at some other point. Most accidents are caused by lack of proper management, had the hirer had a control system in place or had the deceased who was self employed adhered to the letter of the law then the whole mess may have been avoided.

I'm not entirely clear what angle your coming from there. It is a fact the roll bar should have been present, whether he chose to use it , if it was is another matter, and whether it would have saved him if he did, is another matter again.

As I pointed out in my last post, the skip is raised, as it turned over and these machines are highly unstable when moved in this position , but the HSE says he reversed over some material which caused the roll over, I suspect the fact its articulated was a factor too .. either way, even with a little common sense, he should have realised the danger he was putting himself in, and as I mentioned earlier, perhaps his motivation was to mitgate his repair bills.

Its very hard to legislate against peoples poor judgement, and sadly, its cases like this that threaten the ability of others, to hire kit in this fashion should they so wish to do so.

Whilst there is no doubt the kit must be hired with all safety components working, but, with the skip fully raised, when it went over ... its doubtful it would have gone any further than it did and a full roll bar would have been of little useful effect IMO.

However thats just speculation on my part as I wasnt there, or got a chance to examine the scene.